Supreme Court will hear gay marriage cases

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    SKE: "Man. Woman. Child."

    I'm just a regular middle-aged straight guy, not particularly well connected with the gay community, but without thinking too hard I can rattle off close to a dozen gay couple acquaintances with children, some by adoption, but also via sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy, and previous hetero marriages. Conversely, I know several straight couples childless due to fertility issues. If procreation and child welfare are your arguments against gay marriage, why are the former denied marriage while the latter are not? Shouldn't the children of gay couples have the many documented benefits that come from having married parents? Otherwise, aren't you condemning those children to the social dysfunctions that accrue to children of unmarried parents? How does that improve child welfare?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Dec. 9, 2012 9:40 a.m.

    To Stephen Kent Ehat 8:03 p.m. Dec. 7, 2012

    Man. Woman. Child.


    Man. woman. Can't conceive/establish/gestate a pregnancy (for many reasons inluding infertility due to, among other things, age and medical issues). Would you also dey them the right to marry?

  • One Human Family Philadelphia, PA
    Dec. 8, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    Let's hope the court ends discrimination once and for all. Thankfully we live in a country that tends to move toward acceptance and justice for all (although painfully slow at times - just look at how long it took for African Americans to gain equality).

    As more and more people get to know there gay family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, they realize that they are no different than them. They have the same needs and desires to fall in love and marry that person. The fact that millions of dollars have been spent on denying two consenting adults who love each other the right to get married is pretty disheartening, especially when there are so many REAL issues that that need to be tackled. Those millions could have been spent to fight poverty, child labor, children without a home, addiction, pollution, etc.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 8, 2012 9:03 a.m.


    The slippery slope argument? Really?

  • Stephen Kent Ehat Lindon, UT
    Dec. 7, 2012 8:03 p.m.

    Man. Woman. Child.

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    Dec. 7, 2012 7:05 p.m.

    This could open up a whole can of worms if the court decides in favor of gay marriage.

    The next logical step will be polygamy and then the Colorado City / Hilldale decisions against the fundamentalists, restitution and the list goes on and on.

    It will be quite interesting to see our country tailspin faster and faster.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 7, 2012 6:45 p.m.

    @ alt134: States have always defined marriage and even without same-sex marriage there have been different rules in different states and the Federal Government has always recognized all marriages from the states even if another state would not have allowed that marriage (such as marriages between first cousins).

    This is actually the main argument against the portion of DOMA that is being challenged and there is no reason to believe that a practice that is applied to heterosexual relationships would be unconstitutional when applied to same-sex marriages.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2012 2:39 p.m.

    Man. Man. Woman. Woman. Man. Woman.
    To fear love is to fear life, and those who fear life are already three parts dead.
    Bertrand Russell

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2012 2:36 p.m.

    Kennedy will be the swing vote like usual. He has seemed to be more willing to support gay rights.

    I would expect a 5-4 (maybe 6-3 if Roberts wants to go with the majority) striking down Prop 8 but using that weird appeals court ruling logic of "California had it and then banned it, you can't take it away" to justify not striking down all the other gay marriage bans in the nation.

    I'm not sure what to expect on DOMA since the middle-road thing (federal recognition of SSM in states that allow it) doesn't seem particularly constitutional itself.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2012 2:24 p.m.

    Not mormon myself, but I stand with the Mormons on this!

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2012 2:15 p.m.

    Man. Woman.